NGO Monitor Warns Goldstone Inquiry on Dangers of Biased NGO Claims

NGO Monitor

July 06, 2009

(Jerusalem) – NGO Monitor, a watchdog group based in Jerusalem, has submitted a report analyzing the claims and submissions of various NGOs to the UN’s Goldstone Inquiry on the conflict in Gaza.
NGO Monitor’s report highlights that many of these NGO submissions are presented in the form of research reports, but lack the requisite methodology. Instead, they consist of unverifiable allegations from Palestinians, and technical claims regarding Israeli weapons often based on false assumptions (as in the case of Human Rights Watch and Amnesty’s statements on the use of drones and white phosphorous).

NGO Monitor’s statement notes the evidence submitted to the inquiry by highly politicized NGOs such as Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR), which has consistently referred to Palestinian terrorism as “resistance”. Another group, Al Mezan refuses to refer to the Israeli army and instead employs the politically motivated term “Israel Occupation Forces”.

These NGOs also misuse international legal and human rights terminology, accusing Israel of “collective punishment” and “war crimes”. These claims ignore the reality of international law and are inconsistently applied, used primarily to promote hostility towards Israel. The attempt by the political NGO network to erase the blatant evidence of Hamas’ use of the Palestinian population as one massive human shield is particularly reprehensible (see this video clip of a gunman grabbing a child as cover and this detailed independent report for evidence).

A few Israeli victims of the Hamas rocket bombardment against Sderot are appearing before the Goldstone Inquiry today, as well as the father of kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit. Yet this does not alter the entirely biased pro-Palestinian mandate of this UN inquiry, or the prejudicial statements by Goldstone himself and other committee members. Before Goldstone’s recent resignation from their board, Human Rights Watch issued numerous unsubstantiated condemnations of Israel, reflecting a one-sided agenda. Goldstone also signed a letter prepared by Amnesty, saying he was “shocked to the core by the events in Gaza”. The letter promoted a moral equivalence between Israel and Hamas, making repeated reference to violations “on both sides”.

Prof. Gerald Steinberg, the Executive Director of NGO Monitor, stated that “This process, which highlights victimization and pretends that the conflict between Hamas and Israel is comparable to the South African situation after the release of Mandela, reflects a highly distorted framework that is likely to add to the conflict.

The flood of NGO reports and submissions to the committee, which repeat many of the false and unverifiable claims made during the war, continue to prepare the ground for anti-Israel ‘lawfare’ cases in Europe and elsewhere, and to promote demonization. Goldstone should recognize that his experience in the case of Apartheid is entirely different from the Gaza round of the Arab-Israeli conflict. This parade of victims will fuel the hatred and violence, and lead to additional such clashes, with the primary goal of isolating Israel through the abuse of human rights claims”.

Related Articles

Mandated by the UN Human Rights Council, Judge Richard Goldstone is conducting an investigation, including a fact-finding mission to Gaza and public hearings, on alleged war crimes violations by Israel during the Gaza War. NGO Monitors submission details NGO abuses of international law including distortions and demonization by PCHR, HRW, Amnesty, and Al Mezan, and lawfare campaigns and urges his commission to carefully examine the credibility and biases in NGO claims. Tendentious NGO reports influenced the inquiries of the Arab League and the UN Secretary General.